Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 1, 2008 9:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

Right; though it can be done, it shan't...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcgannahan Date: Mar 1, 2008 10:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

mp3's suck. they sound shitty on an expensive stereo system. in the car, it's alright, as my car system is shat anyway. or if your into ipods. i'm still pissed they stopped offering the download series in flac. what a bummer. those were some nice shows they put up too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cousinkix1953 Date: Mar 2, 2008 3:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

" i'm still pissed they stopped offering the download series in flac. what a bummer. those were some nice shows they put up too."

You can still get those FLAC downloads on Nugs.net. I bought the 9-3-80 show on Friday night. No Calif. sales taxes either as was the case with the old Dead.net store in Marin county...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcgannahan Date: Mar 2, 2008 8:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

thanx, i'll check it out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 1, 2008 11:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

I still cannot usually detect the difference, BUT chalk that up to my inabilities...I do have alot of great shows in both, and they both seem good (have even done some tests where folks couldn't tell the difference, but again, have only a low-mid line system). I always find that with shows, the mix and such makes much more difference. Then, when I am listening to commercial (nonlive shows) the quality always seems good, but suppose I could detect more of a difference if I listened to more of that grade (ie, instead of just all the live DEAD shows).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ghostofghostofrbnw Date: Mar 1, 2008 10:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

[Q] From Malcolm Pack: “Presuming that shan’t is an abbreviation of shall not, why do we not write sha’n’t?”
[A] The simple answer is that people quite often used to do so. There are examples in the Oxford English Dictionary from the latter part of the eighteenth century through to the early twentieth. However, it seems it has always been more common to write shan’t than sha’n’t — the OED has 123 examples of the former against only 21 of the latter.
An early one is from a work by Fanny Burney in 1796: “He’ll make himself so spruce, he says, we sha’n’t know him again”. A late one I’ve turned up is dated 1902, from The Grand Babylon Hotel by Arnold Bennett: “We sha’n’t sell again, Prince, until we are tired of our bargain”. This spelling is now almost never seen.
What is a little peculiar is that shan’t is actually older, being found in works from the end of the seventeenth century on, as in this one from Colley Cibber’s Careless Husband of 1704: “Nay, you shan’t stir a step”. Many well-known authors preferred it, like Jane Austen, who wrote in Sense and Sensibility in 1797: “You shan’t talk me out of my satisfaction”.
I would guess that the sha’n’t form eventually lost out because the double apostrophe was a nuisance to write and looked odd. The abbreviation, as you say, strictly demands the extra apostrophe, and it was probably the influence of logically minded eighteenth-century grammarians who persuaded many people to put the extra one in to start with — but whenever did logic ultimately matter in language?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Mar 1, 2008 4:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

I seem to remember Unabomber - Ted - Teddy - Theodore Kaczynski used the old-fashioned word "dastardly," and then got busted because of it. It was noticed by his brother -- who dropped dime on Teddy -- when he correctly recognized it was written by Theo in his "Industrial Society and Its Future" (commonly called the "Unabomber Manifesto"). Watch your back Will Tell.

of course, converting an mp3 to a wave would be a dastardly thing to do!

This post was modified by dead-head_Monte on 2008-03-02 00:11:57

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ERBIE Date: Mar 2, 2008 8:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

THANKS ,for all the replies think ill have to grab a i pod or a mp3 player

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Mar 1, 2008 2:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

Well if that aint the biggest load of horse offal to be splattered all over the fine board, I dont know what is. You mean you actually think on weekends? Freak. I've got your great vowel shift right here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 1, 2008 11:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 ?

There you go: I am fashionably retro just by sticking to my old habits.

Have to admit, it is more fun than "ain't" and I suppose that now that "ain't" is legal, even moreso...

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)